As to those who say "buy yourself a membership and fix the Hugos instead of complaining" you are kind of missing all sorts of points.

Oh, please enlighten us with your great wisdom, O King. Otherwise, your argument boils down to, "You people have bad taste and you should change the way you vote to suit me, although of course I'm much too important to actually do anything about it other than complain about how stupid you are."

I have similar disdain for people who don't vote in mundane elections and then complain about the results, effectively saying, "the world should adjust to my benefit, and I shouldn't have to do anything at all to make it change."

Yes, I'm sarcastic and irritable about this. Twenty-five years ago, when I attended my first Worldcon, I saw things I wanted to change, and realized that nobody was going to change them for me, so I got out there, joined, and worked to make change happen.

If you can't even be troubled to buy a WSFS membership and vote, you don't have a lot of credibility in my opinion. You're just a whiner.

Allow me to translate it into simpler language for those of you who, you know, wouldn't know a logical idea if it bit you.[1]

1) you must be 'qualified' to have an opinion. Well, at least one that disagrees with Sanders. (Long time readers may remember that he also had similar feelings about reviews--you had to have certain qualifications to make comments on the stories in the helix newsgroup)

4) "Newsgroups aren't blogs! They're completely different, and I don't understand how you could possibly confuse this with a blog. The blog view button up there is just for show!" (Seriously, would someone explain to the old boys club that the difference between their newsgroups and our livejournals/blogs/etc is that we get to use fonts other than courier? Or is that what defines a newsgroup these days? Maybe I should go read up on newsgroups. After all, I stopped using them years ago when I found better alternatives.)

5) "Just because this is my space and I pay for it, I'm allowed to say anything I want to, unlike otherpeople in their own paid for space." ----------The sour grapes method of hitting yourself: "For one thing, now that people can no longer make donations, why should we provide them with free reading matter?"

Other important lessons: The idea that you could dislike someone based on how they comport themselves around people you like or admire? That's just crazy talk! Nick CLEARLY hates sanders because "[Sanders's] magazine was better than his and got a Hugo nomination when his didn't", and not for any real reason. Likewise, all of you who were upset over his public, but now deleted, treatment of me and others when we dared ask questions in their chat room? Well, clearly you hate him because he wouldn't read your stories from the slush pile.

[1]"Expecting logical consistency from the Blogtrotters is like expecting a Dachshund to fuck a Great Dane." Since he clearly meant this to be unlikely, I can only assume he has a poor understanding of the nature of dogs, and has never been to a pound. I, on the other hand, find both parts of this statement to be completely true.

Long time readers my journal (aw pre-slapfights days!) know that this isn't the first time we've had a go round on this particular term. (Unfortunately, he has sanitized the internet by deleting the Helix newsgroup.)

As always, he says he's just talking about the *bad* arabsmuslims terrorists. So of course he hasn't said anything offensive.

As always, his toadies are out in droves to defend him and he attempts the distractor where he complains that the commentor publicized private correspondence. Not saying that last is right but since it's been out there before, just own your bigotry, Sanders.

And the whole business is slowly devolving into an argument over the legitimacy of online zines, powered mostly by Will Entrekin's parenthetical speculation that there increasingly seems to be "very little difference between an online zine and a blog".

and while there are those among us who feel it's just a less awesome version of this rant, we don't care about that. What we care about are the comments. (And for those of you who are too lazy to read the whole thing, luckily you have me to provide the highlights.)

Paul Jessup starts off the slapfight funfest with that old standby:

You’re wrong. That is not why the current influx Urban Fantasy sucks. It sucks for so many reasons far more profound and interesting then the fantastic presented as mundane.

So Elizabeth Moon gives him the what for:

Mr. Jessup, you seem to feel that you’re divinely appointed to know right and wrong when you see it.

You’re wrong. Nobody died and appointed you literary god.

If you ever learn to read carefully and with discernment, reason clearly, and acquire minimal social skills so you don’t come across as rude on first acquaintance, you will look back on your posts here with some embarrassment.

Jessup clings to the Mamatas defense:

No, I use logic and reason to discern this.

So Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff breaks out the CAPS:

And if YOU had the rationality of a meerkat, you would see that IT IS NOT the case at all. And please, actually back up your comment logically.

Jeremy Tolbert takes his ball and goes home:

Paul, I said no such thing on Chrononaut. That’s twice you’ve attributed things to me that I did not say. Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired, and I will no longer engage you on this matter if you can’t even read what I’ve actually written.

I’m sorry, the Via JeremyT at the ending made it sound like you were being quoted, and a lot of blog software place the author of the blog beneath the post. So I assumed it was you, I’m sorry if that’s wrong. I don’t read the chrononaut, so I had no idea who had originally said that.

Because you know, blogs are soooo complicated. Possibly he doesn't know what "via" means. Thank goodness Moles has a dictionary:

“Via: preposition: by the agency or instrumentality of.”

But Nazarian for the win:

David Moles,

“A parochial viewpoint and an aggrieved sense of entitlement?” Is that the only thing you can go after in all of my essay? My passionate inflammatory tone? How lukewarm of you. (And no, leave poor Paul Jessup alone, admit, it’s my jugular you’re after.)

What about all the things I am actually saying? Do I strike a sympathetic string anywhere in your gray matter’s hoary depths, or is your semantic instrument completely flat? Because there is a world of difference between a “parochial viewpoint” and a classic one.

And yes, I do have a grand and rather healthy sense of entitlement because I _am_ entitled — entitled to have a strong opinion and to voice it in however manner I choose without being hurtful to others.

Suddenly you owe me an additional apology. Without such, regretfully I must disdain to acknowledge you from this point onward and merely fart SFWA Rainbows in your general direction.

Of course, good old William Sanders has always got something to say on the topic:

Well, Charlie Brown's opinions have never mattered as much as he thought, and I don't know anybody who gives a rat's ass what he thinks about the Nebula ballot or anything else. He says the Nebula is becoming a joke and he doesn't know how to fix it; I've got a tip for you, Charlie old shoe, YOU'RE a fucking joke, and the only way to fix you would be (unfortunately) illegal.

Answers on a postcard as to what this illegal fix might be.

He also comments in passing "Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Karen Fowler's work" so that's that cleared up!

Inscribing a book, if you're not the author, is a crime against humanity. As is defacing a book by scribbling or cutting it in any way.

Disgusting.

Wait, what if you think your $6.99 paperback was meant to be read and not worshiped as a fetish object? Don't worry, that "criminal" veggiesu is on the case:

So, for the hard of thinking, I'll try to put it in words you understand: I don't treat the words as disposable; I treat the *book* as disposable. And if you think that's selfish, well, it's your right to jump to specious conclusions about me. It's stupid and it's rude, but it's most definitely your right.

But Su! he goes to the library! He can't be dumb! And if you can't win the slapfight, personal attacks and a patronizing attitude, well they get you on slapfights:

Do you have children? Grandchildren? Anyone other than yourself you care about? I'm just curious.

[...]

And if you'd ever like to read something that wasn't assigned in 8th grade English class, I'd be happy to guide you.

Awww, thanks grandpa, we wimmen like it when you big strong menfolk offer to "guide" us. But are you sure your lawyer mom said it was ok?

As a result, I've decided that from now on I won't write about fantasy. At all. I won't review any books, I won't review any films, I won't review any TV and I won't share any ideas I might have whether they're controversial or not. Simply put, I don't want anything to do with fantasy any more if some of the charmers who've linked to my post over the last few days are any indicator of the kind of person that is interested in reading about fantasy. I'm done.

First person to spot him reviewing some fantasy wins a prize! Bonus points if this involves a Genre Debate of Doom or a taxonomy of SF/F/H.

Notes Towards A Hierarchy Of Stupid So, SF Award Watch. At first I thought this must be some sort of review_watch site for slapping down the persistant, incomprehensible shit that such awards generate. Then I realised it was something much more boring. Then I noticed Kevin Standlee was one of the contributors so at least some fun will be had from watching him burst into tears whenever someone slags off the Hugos.

It does have polls though. The current poll is for Hugo Best Novel 2007 and I think we will all be pleased to see Blindsight is winning. I await the poll for Stupidest Award with interest. Here are my current suggestions:

A Navy man who got mad when someone mocked him as a "nerd" over the Internet climbed into his car and drove 1,300 miles from Virginia to Texas to teach the other guy a lesson.Advertisement

As he made his way toward Texas, Fire Controlman 2nd Class Petty Officer Russell Tavares posted photos online showing the welcome signs at several states' borders, as if to prove to his Internet friends that he meant business.

When he finally arrived, Tavares burned the guy's trailer down.

This week, Tavares, 27, was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading no contest to arson and admitting he set the blaze.

"I didn't think anybody was stupid enough to try to kill anybody over an Internet fight," said John G. Anderson, 59, who suffered smoke inhalation while trying to put out the 2005 blaze that caused $50,000 in damage to his trailer and computer equipment.

This is a form of synecdoche where the part is used to represent the whole. People who attend Wiscon are used as representative what the future of SF could be like (full of feminists), in contrast with the (hopefully dying) breed of misogynists (racists, etc.) who are commenting in a certain topic (which is not getting linked because it is too full of stupid) over at the Asimov's boards.